RE: mpls l2vpn between 2 asr901's

"> This 9k was running xr 4.1.2"
...
"> However the other side of the l2vpn (9k_b and 901_b)I had same
> hardware BUT that 9k was running xr 4.0.1..."

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Sanchez [mailto:marco207p_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 7:50 PM
To: Aaron
Cc: <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
Subject: Re: mpls l2vpn between 2 asr901's

Great news Aaron. What code were you running on the ASRs?

Regards,
 Joe Sanchez

On Mar 27, 2012, at 6:19 PM, "Aaron" <aaron1_at_gvtc.com> wrote:

> Hey guess what, I got a very sharp cisco tac engineer on the phone and
> he was able to find a fix
>
> The other day I couldn't get ospf to work between the asr901 and
> 9k...actually it worked for a moment then stopped...it was sort of weird.
> So I resorted to a static default route.
>
> The tac eng didn't think that mpls would work with a static default,
> as he mentioned that labels will need to bind to specific underlying
> igp prefixes...(I wondered what the global command "mpls ip
> default-route" was for but not sure I got a good answer out of that)
> so he proceeded to do what I did the other day...turn up ospf. We did
> enable ospf and we got neighbor state up and routes and labels in lfib
> (sho mpls for) but all labels said "no label" . strangely, the 9k
> didn't have a route to the loopback address of the 901. The asr9k
> when doing "sh ip ospf dat router (ipaddress of
> asr901) it should at top of display something about "router not
> reachable"....he added ip ospf net point to point to the gige
> interface of the asr9k and the svi of the asr901 and BAM it worked.
>
> The link between 9k and 901 is a /30. I didn't know you had to use ip
> ospf point-to-point on Ethernet links addressed as /30's ?! anybody
> ever seen that before?
>
> This 9k was running xr 4.1.2
>
> However the other side of the l2vpn (9k_b and 901_b)I had same
> hardware BUT that 9k was running xr 4.0.1...I DIDN'T have to do that
> ip ospf net p-to-p trick and it just worked on this side. Why the
> different behavior? Xr version ?
>
> Ce_a-----901_a-----/30----9k_a----/30-----9k_b-----/30-----901_b-----c
> e_b
>
> Aaron
>
> p.s. I did see that YOU MUST have link up/up on AC (attchement
> circuit) going from pe to ce or the PW will NOT come up. I read it
> online last night and saw it first-hand today....after it all got
> working I shutdown ce_b gig interface and the pw between asr9k's went
down.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of Aaron
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 10:29 AM
> To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> Subject: mpls l2vpn between 2 asr901's
>
> I'm not able to get the pw to come up between 2 different asr901's.
> anybody know how?
>
>
>
> I have the xconnects on the g0/0 interfaces that I wish to emulate L2
> between on each side. I can ping the xconnect endpoint on each side.
> I have an mpls (asr9k) network in the middle between the two
> 901's..the 901's and 9k's do see each other as ldp neighbors..also
> after the xconnect is config'd on the 901's I do see the targeted ldp
> session fireup between the 901's.
>
>
>
> But "sho mpls l2 vc" and "sh xcon all" both show the pw portion
> ("segment2") as DN (down)..the ac (segment1) on both sides is up.
>
>
>
> Aaron
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Wed Mar 28 2012 - 09:40:02 ART